Kauffman v. Nelson, 267

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtMR. JUSTICE FELL:
Citation73 A. 1105,225 Pa. 174
PartiesKauffman v. Nelson, Appellant
Decision Date22 June 1909
Docket Number267

73 A. 1105

225 Pa. 174

Kauffman
v.
Nelson, Appellant

No. 267

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 22, 1909


Argued: March 8, 1909

Appeal, No. 267, Jan. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Franklin Co., Dec. T., 1907, No. 38, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Marie Kauffman v. Thomas M. Nelson. Reversed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before GILLAN, P.J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Defendant presented the following points:

3. If the jury believe from the evidence that when the plaintiff stepped from the car she failed to look whether a vehicle was approaching, and that, with the automobile coming toward her plainly in her view, if she chose to look, she took the risk of getting across the street in front of it, she was guilty of such contributory negligence as will defeat her recovery in this case. Answer: That point is not affirmed as written. If, however, the plaintiff saw the vehicle coming and by standing still could have avoided it, but chose to cross the street immediately in front of it, she was guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover. [1]

4. If the jury believe from the evidence that when the plaintiff alighted from the car the automobile of the defendant was approaching her at a distance from her of twenty to thirty feet, or thereabout, and in her plain and unobstructed view, if she chose to look, it was negligence in her under such circumstances to attempt to cross the street in front of the automobile, if the jury further believe that by standing at the foot of the car steps the automobile would have passed her in safety. Answer: That point is affirmed. If you believe that she saw the automobile coming, and by standing still when she saw it, it would have passed her without striking her, she was guilty of contributory negligence; but you will remember the testimony; what she says about it, and what the others say about it. [2]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,666.95. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned among others were (1, 2) above instructions, quoting them.

The first and second assignments are sustained, and the judgment is reversed with a venire facias de novo.

O. C. Bowers, with him J. R. Ruthrauff and W. O. Nicklas, for appellant. -- Plaintiff having voluntarily placed herself in a position of danger, and having taken the risk, after seeing the automobile comparatively close upon her, of crossing the street in front of it, and there being no conflict of testimony as to this, we submit that the question of her contributory negligence was one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury, and that the court should have given binding instructions in favor of the defendant: Gray v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 184; Tyson v. Union Traction Co., 199 Pa. 264; Flanagan v. Railway Co., 163 Pa. 102; Greer v. Tyson, 185 Pa. 356; Baker v. Fehr, 97 Pa. 70.

It was the duty of the plaintiff to look out for approaching vehicles when she stepped from the car into the street: Harris v. Commercial Ice Co., 153 Pa. 278; Baker v. Fehr, 97 Pa. 70...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Crawford v. Shenango Valley Traction Co.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 8, 1931
    ...a recovery. An instruction which relieves a party from his duty to look before passing over a street is erroneous. Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174, 73 A. 1105. While Alexander v. American Express 157 A. 42 Co., 258 Pa. 378, 101 A. 1050, holds that one who is injured, while crossing a street......
  • Yocum v. Reading City, 153
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 18, 1912
    ...by the rules laid down in such cases as Evans v. Philadelphia, 205 Pa. 193; Quinlan v. Philadelphia, 205 Pa. 309; McClay v. Philadelphia, 225 Pa. 174. Under the charge, which is not impugned, the jury must be understood as having put that interpretation upon it, and that settles his right t......
  • Giles v. Bennett, 149
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 25, 1929
    ...488; Danko v. Rys., 230 Pa. 295. O. K. Eaton, for appellee. -- The case is for the jury: Fish v. Stulb, 274 Pa. 87; Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174; Joyce v. Smith, 269 Pa. 439; Schmidt v. Ry., 224 Pa. 205. Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. OPINION......
  • Dando v. Brobst, 19
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 25, 1935
    ...to look before crossing cannot be doubted. The duty to look rests at all times upon everyone in the use of streets (Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174; Alexander v. Am. Express Co., 258 Pa. 378), and where one steps into a busy street and is immediately struck by a passing vehicle which he cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Crawford v. Shenango Valley Traction Co.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 8, 1931
    ...a recovery. An instruction which relieves a party from his duty to look before passing over a street is erroneous. Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174, 73 A. 1105. While Alexander v. American Express 157 A. 42 Co., 258 Pa. 378, 101 A. 1050, holds that one who is injured, while crossing a street......
  • Yocum v. Reading City, 153
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 18, 1912
    ...by the rules laid down in such cases as Evans v. Philadelphia, 205 Pa. 193; Quinlan v. Philadelphia, 205 Pa. 309; McClay v. Philadelphia, 225 Pa. 174. Under the charge, which is not impugned, the jury must be understood as having put that interpretation upon it, and that settles his right t......
  • Giles v. Bennett, 149
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 25, 1929
    ...488; Danko v. Rys., 230 Pa. 295. O. K. Eaton, for appellee. -- The case is for the jury: Fish v. Stulb, 274 Pa. 87; Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174; Joyce v. Smith, 269 Pa. 439; Schmidt v. Ry., 224 Pa. 205. Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. OPINION......
  • Dando v. Brobst, 19
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 25, 1935
    ...to look before crossing cannot be doubted. The duty to look rests at all times upon everyone in the use of streets (Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174; Alexander v. Am. Express Co., 258 Pa. 378), and where one steps into a busy street and is immediately struck by a passing vehicle which he cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT